Assessment of the Four Marine Protected Areas

Benchmarking the Management Effectiveness of Nationally-Managed Marine Protected Areas in the Philippines and Policy Recommendations

Final Report

September 2013

This publication was prepared by Conservation International (CI) for the Philippines' National CTI Coordination Committee with funding from the United States Agency for International Development's Coral Triangle Support Partnership (CTSP). 1

Benchmarking the Management Effectiveness of Nationally-Managed Marine Protected Areas in the Philippines with Policy Recommendations

Final Report

Emerlinda C. Dizon Rollan C. Geronimo Rodolfo Quicho, Jr.

Benchmarking the Management Effectiveness of Nationally-Managed Marine Protected Areas in the Philippinesand Policy Recommendations

Final Report

September 2013

Copy editing by: AlyaHonasan

Suggested citation: Dizon, E.C., R.C. Geronimo, R. Quicho Jr. 2013. Benchmarking the management effectiveness of nationally-managed marine protected areas in the Philippines and policy recommendations.Final Report for USAID Coral Triangle Support Partnership (CTSP) and Conservation International – Philippines. September 2013.

For more information on the Coral Triangle Initiative, please contact: Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries and Food Security Interim-Regional Secretariat Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries of the Republic of Indonesia Mina Bahari Building II, 17th Floor Jalan Medan MerdekaTimur No. 16 Jakarta Pusat 10110, Indonesia www.coraltriangleinitiative.org

National CTI Coordination Committee – Secretariat Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Department of Environment and Natural Resources Department of Agriculture Ninoy Aquino Parks and Wildlife Center DA Compound, Q.C. Circle, Quezon City Telefax Number: (+632) 925-8948; 924-6031 loc. 207 Telephone Number: (+632) 929-4894; 929-8183

This is a publication of the Coral Triangle Initiative on Corals, Fisheries and Food Security (CTI-CFF). Funding for the preparation of this document was provided by the USAID-funded Coral Triangle Support Partnership (CTSP). CTSP is a consortium led by the World Wildlife Fund, The Nature Conservancy, and Conservation International with funding support from the United States Agency for International Development’s Regional Asia Program.

© 2013 Conservation International, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material in this report for educational or other non-commercial purposes are authorized without any prior written permission from the copyright holders provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of material in this information product for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission of the copyright holders.

Disclaimer: This document is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of Coral Triangle Support Partnership

Table of Contents

Message______6 Executive Summary ...... 7 Introduction ...... 9 The MPAs Assessed ...... 9 Assessment Tools ...... 12 MPA MEAT ...... 12 METT ...... 14 Results and Discussion ...... 15 Difference in result of MEAT and MEAT ...... 16 MEAT Results ...... 17 Management Effectiveness Level ...... 17 Management Focus ...... 18 Management Efforts ...... 20 Perception Surveys ...... 21 Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) Results ...... 25 Alburquerque-Loay-Loboc Protected Landscape and Seascape ...... 26 Apo Reef Natural Park ...... 27 El Nido Managed Resource Protected Area ...... 28 Masinloc and Oyon Bays Marine Reserve ...... 29 Pujada Bay Protected Landscape and Seascape ...... 31 Palaui Island Protected Landscape and Seascape ...... 32 Sarangani Bay Protected Seascape ...... 33 Conclusions ...... 34 Recommendations ...... 35 The Management Body ...... 35 The Management Plan ...... 35 Enforcing the MPA ...... 36 Financing the MPA ...... 36 Increasing awareness on the MPA ...... 36 List of Acronyms ...... 39 References______41

Message

The Philippines is an archipelagic country that lies at the apex of the Coral Triangle. It harbours a vast array of biologically diverse marine environment and resources which are the primary source of livelihood of millions of Filipinos living along the coasts. However, the country also hosts various natural and anthropogenic threats that cause serious damage to our once healthy and rich ecosystems. It is therefore, imperative to develop a creative, adaptive, and effective management of these resources.

The establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs) has been accepted as an effective strategy on coastal and marine resource management. The main objectives for the establishment of these MPAs include, among others: protection and rehabilitation of coastal and marine resources and habitats; replenish fish resources; and promote ecotourism. In 2011, a total of 1,208 MPAs were recorded in the country and many others are being proposed (SCTR 2012). Some of these MPAs have been declared under Republic Act 7586 or the National Protected Areas System Act (NIPAS Act of 1992), while others were established through other national laws and municipal ordinances.

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources through its Protected Area and Wildlife Bureau-Coastal and Marine Management Office has taken active role in addressing concerns to improve the effectiveness of MPAs under the NIPAS through the Sustainable Coral Reef Ecosystems Management Program (SCREMP). This program includes strategic, sustainable, and ecosystem-based approach in protecting and rehabilitating our coral reefs.

Effective management of these MPAs will improve our marine ecological systems that support about 62% of Filipinos that highly depend on these resources for their everyday living, hence, we need to assess the performance of these MPAs. Monitoring the management effectiveness of these MPAs was initiated through collaboration among various sectors wherein monitoring tools were developed, applied, assessed and refined. The MPA Support Network (MSN), a group composed of national government agencies, academic and research institutions, non-government organizations, etc. developed the Management Effectiveness Assessment Tool (MEAT) as a way to assess the management performance of MPAs.

This benchmarking activity conducted by the Coral Triangle Support Partnership (CTSP) is an important input to the implementation of various activities for the management of MPAS, including those under NIPAS. We hope that more partners will join with us in alleviating the current status of our MPAs and indeed, achieve our objective of biodiversity conservation for sustainable use of our coastal and marine resources.

THERESA MUNDITA S. LIM Director Department of Environment and Natural Resources Protected Area and Wildlife Bureau

Executive Summary

For many years, establishing marine protected areas (MPAs) has been one of the most widely used ways of promoting sustainable management of coastal resources and marine biodiversity conservation in the Philippines. Many MPAs have been shown to achieve some measure of success, providing various benefits in areas like fisheries, tourism, species protection and climate change resilience. MPAs help promote community participation in resource management (for local MPAs established under the Fisheries Code) and allow the conservation of relatively large areas of national importance (for national MPAs established under the National Integrated Protected Area System or NIPAS).

However, to help sustain and promote these benefits, there is a need to understand the state of the MPAs in the Philippines and to determine interventions that could be recommended to further enhance their effective management, hence, this benchmarking activity is conducted using the MPA Management Effectiveness Assessment Tool (MEAT) and the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT).

Nine (9) of out the 33 national MPAS under Philippine NIPAS were assessed using MEAT. These nine (9) MPAs cover 32% of the total 2,234,242 hectares of NIPAS MPAs. The results of this assessment show that three (3) out of nine (9) MPAs were effectively managed with two (2) achieving Level 2 and one reaching Level 3. Three (3) MPAs were at Level 1 while the rest have not reached the establishment level. At least 48% or 340,449 hectares out of 709,897 hectares of MPAs are effectively managed areas.

The seven (7) MPAs assessed using METT have reached a highest percentage score of 50% and an average of 42%. From the results of the assessment, several recommendations were drawn on areas of improving the capability of the management body, strengthening the law enforcement system of the MPAs, securing financing and other actions related to the nine effectiveness criteria. These recommendations include the following:

 Build the capability of the protected area management board and protected area (PA) workers through institutionalized training program  Increase the number of PA workers through partnership with other national government agencies (NGAs) as well as local governments  Complete the PA establishment process of all 33 MPAs under NIPAS  Formulate a strategy for involving local and national governments in MPA management  Address perennial fundraising and financing problems through advocating for annual allocations for individual MPAs to be included in the General Appropriations Act  Strengthen the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) as well as learning system of MPAs

Introduction

This report discusses the results of the assessment ofnine (9) marine protected areas (MPAs) in the Philippines which have been declared as protected areas under the National Integrated Protected Area System Act (NIPAS Act) of 1992 otherwise known as Republic Act No. 7586.It provides a description of the effectiveness of the management and operations of these pre-identified MPAs.

The assessment was an initiative that streams from the imperative to understand the state of the MPAs in the Philippines and to determine interventions that could be recommended to further enhance their effective management. In so doing, this activity also addresses the need to measure how much of the marine habitats are effectively protected and managed to contribute to the commitment of the Philippine Government to the Coral Triangle Initiative (CTI) stipulated in its National Plan of Action (NPOA) (Goal Number 3: Marine Protected Areas Established and Effectively Managed). The results of this assessment shall be used as a benchmark in monitoring the progress of the achievement of this goal.

With assistance from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Coral Triangle Support Partnership (CTSP) implemented by the Conservation International Philippines (CIP), this assessment is undertaken.

The MPAs Assessed

There are two main categories of MPAs in the Philippines: (1) the locally-managed MPAs which are declared by the local governments through a municipal or city ordinance mandated under the Philippine Fisheries Code (RA 8550) and the Local Government Code (RA 7160);and(2) the nationally-managed MPAs which are initial components of the National Integrated Protected Area System (NIPAS)under RA 7586, declared and proclaimed through presidential proclamation and/or through congressionalact.

The number of locally-managed MPAs totalled 1,620 in the Philippines (Weeks, et. al., 2009) while the nationally-managed MPAs totalled 33 spread sparsely in the five (5) biogeographic regions of the country.

The aggregate area for these nationally-managed MPAs is 2,234,242hectares, the largest is the Tañon Strait Protected Seascape with a total area of 518,221 hectares. This MPA straddles along coastal municipalities of the three provinces of Cebu, Negros Oriental and Occidentalbelonging to two different regions (Region 6 and 7). On the other hand the smallest is the Murcielagos Island Protected Landscape and Seascape located in the municipality of Labason in the province of Zamboanga del Norte in Region 9 with an area of 100 hectares. Most of these MPAs have land component and only five (5) MPAs are purely coastal and marine areas namely, Masinloc and Oyon Bay Marine Reserve, Tubbataha Reef Natural Park, Tañon Strait Protected Seascape, Panglao Island Protected Seascape and Saranggani Bay Protected Seascape. The Apo Reef Natural Park and Alburquerque-Loay-Loboc Protected Landscape and Seascape have minimal land component.

Table 1: Marine Protected Areas under NIPAS

Area Issuance No. Region Name of Marine Protected Area Location (Province) Covered (in Proclamation Date hectares No. Agoo-Damortis Protected Landscape and 1 1 La Union 10,513 Proc. 277 April 23, 2000 Seascape 2 2 Peñablanca Protected Landscape and Seascape Cagayan 118,781 Proc. 484 October 6, 2003 3 2 Batanes Protected Landscape and Seascape Batanes 213,578 RA 8991 January 5, 2001 Palaui Island Protected Landscape and 4 2 Cagayan 7,415 Proc. 447 August 28, 1994 Seascape 5 3 Masinloc and Oyon Bays Marine Reserve Zambales 7,568 Proc. 231 August 18, 1993 September 6, 6 4B Apo Reef Natural Park Occidental Mindoro 27,469 Proc. 868 1996 7 4B El Nido Managed Resource Protected Area Palawan 89,134 Proc. 32 October 8, 1998 Malampaya Sound Protected Landscape and 8 4B Palawan 200,115 Proc. 342 July 12, 2000 Seascape 9 4B Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park Palawan 97,030 RA 10067 April 6, 2010 Malabungot Protected Landscape and 10 5 Camarines Sur 120 Proc. 288 April 23, 2000 Seascape 11 5 Bongsanglay Natural Park Masbate 244 Proc. 319 May 31, 2000 12 6 Sagay Protected Landscape/Seascape Negros Occidental 32,000 RA 9106 April 14, 2001 Talibon Group of Islands Protected 13 7 Bohol 6,456 Proc. 131 July 5, 1999 Landscape/Seascape Alburquerque-Loay-Loboc Protected 14 7 Bohol 1,164 Proc. 293 April 23, 2000 Landscape and Seascape 15 7 Apo Island Protected Landscape/Seascape Negros Oriental 691 Proc. 438 August 9, 1994 Cebu, Negros 16 7 Tañon Strait Protected Seascape Oriental, Negros 518,221 Proc. 1234 May 27, 1998 Occidental 17 7 Panglao Island Protected Seascape Bohol 385 Proc. 426 July 22, 2003 18 8 BiriLarosa Protected Landscape/Seascape Northern Samar 33,492 Proc. 291 April 23, 2000 September 26, 19 8 Guiuan Protected Landscape/Seascape Eastern Samar 60,448 Proc. 469 1994 20 8 Cuatro Islas Protected Landscape/Seascape Leyte 12,500 Proc. 270 April 23, 2000 Zamboanga del 21 9 Aliguay Island Protected Landscape/Seascape 1,187 Proc. 106 May 6, 1999 Norte 22 9 Dumanquilas Protected Landscape/Seascape Zamboanga del Sur 25,948 Proc. 158 August 10, 1999 23 ARMM Turtle Islands Wildlife Sanctuary Tawi-Tawi 242,967 Proc. 171 August 26, 1999 Great & Little Sta. Cruz Is. Protected 24 9 Zamboanga del Sur 1,877 Proc. 271 April 23, 2000 Landscape/Seascape Selinog Island Protected Landscape and Zamboanga del 25 9 960 Proc. 276 April 23, 2000 Seascape Norte Murcielagos Island Protected Landscape and Zamboanga del 26 9 100 Proc. 281 April 23, 2000 Seascape Norte November 22, 27 10 Baliangao Protected Landscape/Seascape Misamis Occidental 295 Proc. 418 2000 Initao-Libertad Protected Landscape and September 16, 28 10 Misamis Oriental 1,300 Proc. 260 Seascape 2002 29 11 Baganga Protected Landscape and Seascape Davao Oriental 114 Proc. 269 April 23, 2000 30 11 Mabini Protected Landscape and Seascape Compostela Valley 6,106 Proc. 316 May 31, 2000 31 11 Pujada Bay Protected Landscape/Seascape Davao Oriental 21,200 Proc. 431 July 31, 1994 Sarangani and 32 12 Sarangani Bay Protected Seascape 215,950 Proc. 756 March 5, 1996 General Santos City October 10, 33 13 Siargao Protected Landscape/Seascape Surigao del Norte 278,914 Proc. 902 1996 TOTAL 2,234,242 10

This assessment was conducted to the nine (9) pre-selected nationally-managed MPAs out of the 33 under NIPAS all over the Philippines. Covering significantly large marine areas or 32% of the total marine area under NIPAS,these are as follows:

1) Masinloc and Oyon Bays Marine Reserve (MOBMR)

The MOBMR is one of the first NIPAS sites declared by President Fidel Ramos through PP 231 in August 19, 1993. It has a total of 7,568 hectares of coastal area and islands within the bays in Masinloc, Zambales.

2) Apo Reef Natural Park (ARNP)

The ARNP was proclaimed as a protected area under the category of Natural Park by virtue of PP 868 issued in September 6, 1996. In May 2006, the Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) submitted the reef for consideration as a World Heritage Site of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Its total area of 15, 792 hectares has increased to 27,469 hectares to include the buffer zones as no-take zones.

3) Palaui Island Protected Landscape and Seascape (PIPLS)

The PIPLS covers a total area of 7,415 hectares where about 4,415 hectares comprises the marine area. It is located inBrgy. San Vicente, Sta. Ana, Cagayan.UnderPP 447, PILPS became part of the NIPASon August 16, 1994.

4) Alburquerque-Loay-Loboc Protected Landscape and Seascape (ALLPLS)

The ALLPLS became an initial component of NIPAS Act being the Mangrove Swamp Marine Reserve proclaimed under PP 2152. It has a total area of about 1,164 hectares which includes both sea and land. The land part is the area where the mangrove swamp and the shoreline are located. The ALLPLS spans along the coastal areas of the municipalities of Alburquerque, Loay and Loboc in the northeastern part of the province of Bohol.

5) Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park (TRNP)

The TRNP is one of the oldest marine protected areas in the Philippines; it was established four years before the enactment of the NIPAS Act of 1992. It has expanded its core zone from 33,200 hectares to 96,828 hectares based on PP 1126 in 2006. It declared protected area by Congress through RA 10067 dated April 6, 2010 which increased the area to 97,030 hectares.

6) El Nido Managed Resource Protected Area (ENMRPA)

The ENMRPA consists of 54,192.6 hectares of marine area and 36,128.4 hectares of land or a total of 89,134 hectares. It became part of NIPAS through PP32 dated October 8, 1998.

7) Turtle Islands Wildlife Sanctuary (TIWS)

The TIWS was established on August 26, 1999 through PP 171 to protect the242,967-hectare nesting area for green turtles (Cheloniamydas) in the six islands of the municipality of Turtle Islands in the province of Tawi-tawi. It is part of the Turtle Islands Heritage Protected Area (TIHPA) established in 1995 through a memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the Republic of the Philippines and

Government of Malaysia. Located between Malaysia and the Philippines, the TIHPA is the world’s first transborder marine protected area forsea turtle.

8) Sarangani Bay Protected Seascape (SBPS)

The SBPS is one of the largest marine protected areas in the Philippines covering 215,950 hectares proclaimed by virtue of PP 756 on March 5, 1996.It is found in the southern tip of Mindanao in the province of Sarangani covering Maitum, Kiamba, Maasim, Sarangani municipalities and one city, General Santos City.

9) Pujada Bay Protected Landscape and Seascape (PBPLS)

The PBPLS has a total area of 21,200 hectares and was declared protected area under PP 431 dated July 31, 1994. It is located at the southeastern part of Mindanao within the territorial jurisdiction of the Municipality of Mati, Province of Davao Oriental.

Assessment Tools These benchmarking activities utilized two MPA management effectiveness tools: (1) the Management Effectiveness Assessment Tool (MEAT) and(2) the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT).

All of the nine (9) MPAs assessed under this benchmarking study used MEAT while six (6) MPAsnamely, ALLPLS, SBPS, and PBPLS were assessed using METT.

MPA MEAT MEAT was developed by the Marine Protected Area Support Network (MSN) with support from USAID-CTSP and other entities. It was implemented by CIP to measure the management effectiveness of MPAs, From the MPA Report Guide used by Coastal Conservation Education Foundation (CCEF) andenhanced by the Environmental Governance Project Phase 2 of USAID, the MPA MEAT became the harmonized version of these preceding tools.

It is used to understand the present status of the MPAs based on the parameters of management effectiveness. In the Philippines, the effective management of MPAs can be gauged through at least nine (9) major criteria:

1) community participation in the establishment process

2) presence of a management plan drafted, adopted, implemented, reviewed, updated, and incorporated in broader development plans

3) presence of a management body with identified members whose roles are clarified and who are capable of supervising management activities, accessing technical assistance when necessary, and outsourcing funds

4) presence of a legal instrument that is sufficient to enforce the MPA, such as a municipal ordinance (MO) if it is locally-managed, and a presidential proclamation or a republic act if it is nationally- managed 12

5) availability of sufficient funds for the operations of the MPA through annual budget allocations from the barangay, municipal, or provincial LGUs, sourced out from assisting NGOs (local and international), revenues from user fees, entrance fees, and other sustainable financing schemes with the end view of maintaining a self-sufficient MPA

6) continuous awareness campaigns to disseminate information about the MPA— its boundaries, policies, and management body—with the goal of sustaining community support and compliance

7) presence of an enforcement system with a composite, capacitated team conducting regular collaborative monitoring, control, and surveillance as evidenced by records of violations, cases filed, violators penalized, and sanctions enforced Figure 1: Maximum points per management 8) presence of a monitoring and evaluation effectiveness criteria system with baseline assessments, annual participatory biophysical monitoring, socioeconomic monitoring, and impact assessments

9) development of the site through the construction of various support facilities and infrastructure, and the formulation of expansion strategies or resource enhancement programs

MEAT features parameters called thresholds that are deemed important in every level of management effectiveness. The thresholds define the level of management effectiveness. Figure 2: Thresholds for each of the management For example, level 1 or established MPAs effectiveness level should have baseline assessment, management plan adopted, legal instrument approved, management body formed and budget allocations for at least one year. The allowable score for threshold questions is either 3 or 0. Scoring in the MEAT form is through an assessment of presence or absence of the required criteria, if the criteria are present, then the score is 3, if absent or partially present, the score is 0. For example, “Baseline assessment conducted”, if there was a baseline assessment conducted and there are documents that could be provided as evidence to the claim, then the MPA will have a score of 3. Although the form (Annex A) was designed as a self-assessment tool, it is also requires evidence called “Means of Verification”. This would also encouraged the MPAs to have an improved record keeping system even at the barangay or municipal level.

To qualify in each level of management effectiveness, all of the threshold questions and at least 75% of the total allowable score in each level should be satisfied. An effectively managed MPA is the MPA that satisfies the requirements of Level 2 and above.

Table 2: MPA MEAT Rating Reference

Management Status The levels below are MPA Level Number The scores are indicative thresholds that Achievable indicative names used to (based on minimum of accumulate through time. Points establish levels of indicators) Criteria Minimum Score including Cumulative/ performance Thresholds Overall Score 1 – Established 17 27 20/27 0-24 – Fair MPA is Established [1 Year +] 2 – Strengthened 11/15 MPA Management is 9 15 25-39 – Good [2 Years +] Cumulative points=31 Effectively Strengthened 3 – Sustained 16/ 21 40-61 – Very MPA Management is 11 21 [5 Years +] Cumulative points = 47 Good Effectively Sustained 4 – Institutionalised 16/ 21 62-81 MPA Management is 11 21 [7 Years +] Cumulative points=63 Excellent Effectively Institutionalized TOTAL 48 84 63

METT

The PAWB adopted the METT—prepared by the World Bank and WWF for their Global Environment Facility (GEF)-funded projects on protected areas—as the primary instrument for measuring the management effectiveness of protected areas in the Philippines.METT is a self-assessment tool designed to measure how effective a protected area is being managed. It is a self-reflection of the protected area management boards (PAMBs) on how well they are doing with their protected areas.

Through a memorandum circular from the director of PAWB, the instructions on the administration of METT is given to the regional offices of DENR. This guideline becomes the basis for the process of assessment done in this study.The assessment process requires a quorum of the PAMB en banc. After the brief orientation on the tool, each of the PAMB members present during the en banc meeting will be provided with METT individual assessment form (Annex B) where he/she will write his/her own scores. The individual responses of the PAMB members were encoded in a scoresheet developed under this study to facilitate the computation of the percentage score. There are two parts of the form, the first part evaluates the threats faced by the MPA and the second part is the assessment of the effectiveness of the management of the MPA.

This benchmarking activity uses two scoring computations:

(1) the computation provided by PAWB, as follows:

Total Actual Total Actual Score

Percentage Score on Additional Points 100 100 Score Total Maximum Total Maximum Score Score on Additional Points 14

(2) the simple scoring, as follows:

Total Actual Total Actual Score on Percentage Score Additional Points Score 100 Total Maximum Total Maximum Score Score on Additional Points

The first will give the maximum percentage score of 200% while the second will give a percentage score of not more than 100%.For the presentation of results and discussion, this report used the simple scoring method. However, the results based on PAWB’s computation is also discussed.

Results and Discussion

The results of the benchmarking show thatonly three (3) or 33% of the MPAs assessed are effectively managed. These are the ENMRPA, ARNP and TRNP. The six (6)MPAs or 67% of them need to improve their management actions and interventions and strengthen their management body (PAMBs) to perform effectively. Further discussion on the results of the assessment is provided in the succeeding sections.

Table 3: MPA Benchmarks

Number of Effectively Total Area MPAs Managed Management Effectiveness (in Number % % Area (in hectares) hectares) Level 0 – MPA has not satisfied 3 33% 16,147.00 2% the requirements of Level 1 Level 1 - MPA is established 3 33% 353,301 50% Level 2 - MPA is strengthened 2 22% 243,419 34% 243,419 Level 3 - MPA is effectively 1 11% 97,030 14% 97,030 sustained Level 4 - MPA is effectively 0 institutionalized Total 9 100% 709,897 100% 340,449

The benchmarking activity has determined that at least 48% or 340,449 hectares out of 709,897 hectares of MPAs are effectively managed areas.

Difference in result of MEAT and MEAT

Most of the results of MEAT have higher scores than METT. Four (4) out of the seven (7) MPAs assessed with both tools showed higher achievements in MEAT than in METT. Only ALLPLS has almost the same scores in MEAT (31%) and METT (33%). The highest difference in percentage score is in ARNPwith a difference of 41 having MEAT score of 88% and only 47% in METT.

Table 4: Results of the Assessment

Name of MEAT Result METT Result MPA Level Percentage Accomplishment MOBMR Level 0 20% 37% PIPLS Level 0 31% 50% ALLPLS Level 0 31% 33% PBPLS Level 1 79% 48% TIWS Level 1 57% No data yet ENMRPA Level 1 57% 50% SBPS Level 2 64% 27% ARNP Level 2 88% 47% TRNP Level 3 96% No data yet Comparison of MEAT and METT Results MEAT Result METT Result 100% 88% 90% 79% 80% 70% 64% 60% 57% 50% 50% 48% 50% 47% 37% 40% 31% 33% 31% 30% 27% 20% 20% 10% 0% MOBMR ALLPLS PIPLS ENMRPA SBPS PBPLS ARNP

Figure 3: Difference in the percentage scores of the MPAs assessed using MEAT and METT

The disparities between MEAT and METT results can be attributed to at least two factors. First is the scoring method. MEAT uses presence-absence method which means a score may only be either 3 or 0 for threshold questions, or 1 or 0 for non-threshold questions. On the other hand, METT uses gradients

scoring, which means that the score may vary from 1, 2, or 3 in each question. This is why many of the MPAs assessed have higher scores in METT than in MEAT.

Second is the data-gathering protocol. MEAT uses a focus-group discussion, which captures the score agreed by the participants upon identifying the available means of verification, while METT uses a survey of at least 50% plus 1 of the total PAMB members en banc. Furthermore, there are parameters in METT which gathers varying scores from different PAMB members. Since it is based on the perception of the member who is answering the question, each score may be higher or lower compared to others. With MEAT, however, deliberations are done before coming up with the score for the MPA.

MEAT Results

The discussion on the results of the MEAT will be divided into three parts: (1) management effectiveness level which discusses the performance of the management body in addressing the thresholds and other parameters in each of the management level, (2) management focus discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the MPAs assessed and provides a basis for identification and prioritization of interventions for each of the MPAs assessed, and (3) management efforts measures how the management body and their partners invested their efforts in the operation of the MPA.

Management Effectiveness Level

The levels of effectiveness are ranked into four levels, namely, Level 1 or MPA is established; Level 2 or MPA is enforced; Level 3 or MPA is effectively sustained; and Level 4 or MPA is effectively institutionalized.

The benchmarking activity results show that three out of the nine MPAs were effectively managed and had satisfied the requirements of Levels 2 and 3.TRNP has satisfied the thresholds and the minimum cumulative score for Level 3. It has however failed to satisfy one threshold under Level 4 which is on being a self-sustaining MPA. It was learned by this study that the cost of the operations of TRNP has not been fully met by the existing budget allocations from the revenues from the park, from the Provincial Government of Palawan and from other sources.

ARNP and SBPS satisfied the thresholds and the cumulative score of Level 2. ARNP has its own rangers that enforce the policies of the MPA, conduct regular patrolling, undertake apprehensions and file cases against apprehended violators. SBPS, on the other hand relies primarily from the BantayDagat network in the coastal communities surrounding the Saranggani Bay. Six (6) municipalities of Sarangani and the chartered city of General Santos surround the bay. Each municipal has deputized BantayDagat that patrol and enforce fisheries and coastal laws in the coastal waters adjoining their municipal and city boundaries.

Three MPAs—ENMRPA, PBPLS, and TIWS—are Level 1. Regular patrolling and surveillance are not conducted regularly in ENMRPA because there are no more rangers hired for the PA. The protected area superintendent (PASu) depends on the community monitoring mechanism wherein community leaders relay to him information on violations through text messages. However, response on apprehension seldom executed due to various circumstances. The same is also the case of PBPLS where BantayDagat members are mobilized for patrolling and apprehension but organized and coordinated enforcement team is not yet fully operational. In TIWS, the difficulty in filing cases against apprehended violators is due to its distance to the fiscal’s office in Bonggao, Tawi-tawiwhich is about 10-hour boat ride away.Parameters on enforcement are the main thresholds that should be met for Level 2. These three MPAs failed to satisfy these parameters during the MEAT assessment workshop.

Table 5: MPA MEAT Results

Estimated Total Name of Level of Marine Cumulative % Area MPA Effectiveness Area Score Accomplishment (has.) (has.)

TRNP Level 3 97,030 97,030 81 96% ARNP Level 2 27,469 27,469 74 88% SBPS Level 2 215,950 215,950 54 64% ENMRPA Level 1 89,134 54,192 48 57% PBPLS Level 1 21,200 No data 66 79% TIWS Level 1 242,967 242,649 48 57% PIPLS Level 0 7,415 4,415 26 31% ALLPLS Level 0 1,164 1,164 26 31% MOBMR Level 0 7,568 7,568 17 20% Total/ 709,897 650,437 49 58% Average

Management Focus

The strengths of the MPAs benchmarked include(1) the presence of legal instruments which are the basis for the implementation of the protected area, and which may be either presidential proclamations and/or republic acts that complete the 13 legal steps towards the establishment of a protected area under theNIPAS Act;(2) community participation in the establishment process through conduct of consultations and public hearings; and (3) the presence of management plan which is the General Management Plan (GMP) mandated by the NIPAS Act.

Most of these sites have been established or declared as protected areas through presidential proclamations, except for the TRNP which has its own particular republic act passed by the Philippine Congress. Consultations and public hearings were conducted during the process of establishing the

MPAs as evidenced by photographs taken during these activities and retrieved from the oldest files in the office of the PASu. Every MPA has its own PAMB, which meets quarterly, but which also holds special meetings to address issues and concerns that need the immediate attention of the board. These include deliberations on the applications for the Special Use Agreement in Protected Areas (SAPA)submitted by some establishments requesting for permission to operate commercial or industrial activities—such as maricultureand resorts—within the protected areas, as provided for in DENR Administrative Order No. 17 series of 2007.

The most common weaknesses among the benchmarked MPAs lie in the areas of (1) monitoring and evaluation, (2) sustainable financing and (3) information, education, and communication (IEC) programs, and (4) management body. Most of the MPAs do not have files of their baseline assessment, while others do not have any monitoring and evaluation linked to their adaptive management programs and policies.

Financing has also been a perennial concern of the MPAs under NIPAS. This could be addressed if the national government would provide funds sufficient enough to sustain the conservation investments. Most of the MPAs have a P40,000+ annual budget for the quarterly meetings of the PAMB, but other than that, there are no available funds for their operations. Some MPAs were able to access the 75% of the revenues they had remitted to the Integrated Protected Area Fund (IPAF), but only after a process that took some three quarters to two years to complete. Some MPAs such as the ENTMRPA are no longer remitting their revenues to the IPAF. Instead, through a PAMB resolution and a MOAwith the LGU, the revenues are collected by the LGU through its treasurer’s office and at least 20% of the total revenue is provided for the operations of the MPA (e.g. office rental, utilities, and transportation expense of the MPA staff).

Most of the IEC programs are done whenever there are externally funded projects for the MPAs, but no MPA has ever conducted IEC programs using their internal funds. Perception surveys show that the MPA name under NIPAS is not known to the respondents. However, the name of the no-take zones which are marine or fish sanctuaries are very popular among the fishers because these are being imposed by the BantayDagat under the LGU but not under the PAMB or DENR.

Management Plan ALLPLS 100 Site Management 80 TRNP Development Body 60 ENTMRPA 40 Monitoring and Legal TIWS 20 Evaluation Instrument 0 SBPS PBPLS Community Enforcement Participation MOBMR ARNP IEC Financing PIPLS

Figure 4: Individual assessment of strengths andweaknesses of the MPAs

Figure 4 shows that most of the assessed MPAs should focus their management interventions in 1) installing a monitoring and evaluation system that would provide the PAMB relevant information that can be used in the planning and decision making process; and 2) establishing mechanisms that would increase the resources for effective, functional and operational management of the MPA which can be internally or externally generated. The strengthening and capacitation of the PAMB should also be the priority intervention to the MPAs. The DENR and its partner institutions should be able to come up with a ladderized training program for the PAMB members which should be beyond orientation of the newly installed PAMB members, whose appointment expires every five (5) years.

Some potential trainings for the PAMB members include: a) participatory biophysical and socioeconomic monitoring and assessment; b) project development and resource mobilization; and c) leadership and basic conservation and management concepts and values. Most of the PAMB members are not aware of the basic information about the resources they are mandated to protect and conserve.

Management Efforts

The MEAT takes into consideration all efforts exerted by the management body, and thisis reflected in the MPA's total cumulative score. Correspondingly, the PBPLS, having been sustaining IEC activities and undertaking measures such as impact assessment, monitoring, and evaluation, has a higher cumulative score compared to SBPS. But because it had failed to conduct regular patrolling and surveillance due to lack of logistics, it had only achieved effective management Level 1, whereas the SBPS had already achieved Level 2. This is an example of how the tool has provided significant considerations on the 20

various activities in the MPAs. Some MPAs have undertaken a roster of activities but are not prioritized based on the important parameters that will make the MPA more effective in achieving its objectives of conservation and sustainable use of resources.

Management Efforts 120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% Level 0 Level 0 Level 0 Level 1 Level 1 Level 2 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 MOBMR PIPLS ALLPLS TIWS ENMRPA SBPS PBPLS ARNP TRNP

Figure 5: Level of efforts exerted in MPAs

Figure 5 shows that only one(1) MPA is rated fair, two (2) MPAs are good, three (3) are very good and another three (3) are excellent. The categories are based on the cumulative scores as provided in Table 2.

Perception Surveys

The perception survey gauges the level of awareness of stakeholders, their perceived benefits from the MPA, their perception on the functionality of the management body and their willingness to support the MPA. The results of the perception survey are useful for the MPA management body to adjust their community awareness programs and activities.

This study conducted perception surveys to eight (8) MPAs. The PAMB of ARNP did not allow the conduct of perception survey for security reasons. The surveys were able to give indicators of how aware the local populations were of theseMPAs.

The following tables and charts show the results of the perception surveys conducted. The average number of respondents to the six-question interview schedule (Annex A) is 198 per site. A convenience sampling method was applied to get an approximation of the perceptions on the MPAs within their locality.

Table 6: Number of Respondents per MPA

Name of MEAT Number of Place of Residence of MPA Result Respondents Respondents 1) ALLPLS Level 0 118 Alburquerque and Loay, Bohol 2) TRNP Level 3 83 Puerto Princesa City, Palawan 3) ENMRPA Level 1 200 El Nido, Palawan 4) TIWS Level 1 151 Baguan, Tawi-tawi, Zamboanga del Sur 5) PBPLS Level 1 300 Mati City, Davao Oriental 6) SBPS Level 2 304 General Santos City, South Cotabato 7) MOBMR Level 0 257 Masinloc, Zambales 8) PIPLS Level 0 171 Sta. Ana, Cagayan Average number of respondents 198

Most of the respondents interviewed were aware of the MPA in their locality (78% in Puerto Princesa City; 93% in El Nido). It is, however, noticeable that in the case of the ALLPLS, only 58% of the respondents knew about it and most of them were from the municipality of Alburquerque while the respondents from the municipality of Loay were not aware of the MPA. Most of the respondents in Mindanao were not aware of the MPA in their municipality or city. In Masinloc, Zambales, the respondents did not actually know the name of the MPA there under the NIPAS but they were aware of the marine sanctuaries declared and managed by the local government of Masinloc.

Awareness Level of the Community on the MPA

Aware Not aware No answer

93% 78% 78% 65% 65% 58% 62% 52% 53% 42% 45% 43% 29% 34% 21% 26% 14% 7% 7% 9% 9% 1% 1% 1% 3% 4%

ALLPLS ENMRPA TNRP TIWS SBPS PBLPS MOBMR PIPLS Average

Figure 6: Community awaereness level on the MPA

Respondents from Puerto Princesa City have known the TRNP through electronic media, i.e., television and radio, while respondents from El Nido said that the presence of the protected area (PA) office in the town center has made them aware of the MPA.

More respondents in the six (6) MPAsperceived that they had benefited from their MPA, either through the increase in fish catch (for fisher respondents) or the increase in therecognitionof the area as a tourist destination (for non-fisher respondents).

More respondents in the two other MPAssaid that they do not know if they benefited from the MPA. In SBPS and PBPLS, more respondents did not observeany benefit from their MPA.

Respondents' Perceived Benefit from the MPA

Observed benefit from the MPA Have not observed benefit from the MPA Do not know

63%

53% 50% 44% 45% 38% 34% 36% 32% 27% 25% 26% 26% 21% 23% 18% 18% 19% 17% 12% 14% 9% 5% 3% 3% 4%

ALLPLS ENMRPA TNRP TIWS SBPS PBLPS MOBMR PIPLS Average

Figure 7: Community perception on the benefit from the MPA

About half of the fisher respondents in Puerto Princesa City perceived an increase in daily fish catch since the establishment of the TRNP, while 45% of non-fisher respondents believed that they hadalready benefited fromthe TRNP's becoming one of the most popular tourist spots in the province of Palawan. In Mindanao, a greatnumber of respondents did not observe any increase in their daily fish catch norany other benefits since the establishment of the MPAs.

Perceptions on the Effects of MPA on Fisheries

Observed increase in fish catch since the MPA was established Have not observed increase in fish catch since the MPA was established Do not know 42% 44% 46% 43% 45% 45% 33% 32% 35% 35% 29% 25% 25% 15% 17% 3% 3% 4%

ALLPLS TNRP TIWS SBPS PBLPS Average

Figure 8: Effects of the MPA on fisheries

On the average, 42% of the respondents perceived a decrease in the incidence of illegal fishing due to effective coastal law enforcement by the MPA management. Some respondents in Puerto PrincesaCity even knew or heard ofneighbours or relatives who had been caught fishing or gathering samong in the Tubbataha area, and soconcluded that illegal fishing was indeed being controlled in the MPA.

Respondents' Perception on the Status of Illegal Fishing Increased illegal fishing since the MPA was established Decreases illegal fishing since the MPA was established Do not know 88% 80%

65% 62%

43% 40% 40% 42% 40% 26% 26% 17% 16% 15% 14% 12% 9% 8% 4% 7% 3%

ALLPLS ENMRPA TNRP TIWS SBPS PBLPS Average Figure 9: Status of illegal fishing within the MPA

The respondents in the six (6) MPAs perceived that the PAMBs are functional while the respondents in areas along the Sarangani Bay and Pujada Bay perceived that the PAMBs are not functional. Many respondents (37% average) do not know if the PAMBs are functional or not.

Functionality of PAMB

Functional Management Body Not Functional Management Body Do not know

81% 81%

62% 63% 65% 52% 53% 44% 36% 37% 25% 29% 21% 13% 16% 14% 14% 9% 10% 11% 9% 4% 6% 4% 4% 7%

ALLPLS ENMRPA TNRP TIWS SBPS PBLPS MOBMR PIPLS Average

Figure 10: Perceptions on the functionality of PAMBs

Generally, respondents felt that the MPA management could be sustained. Respondents in Sanraggani Bay felt that MPA management could not be sustained and an overwhelming majority were unsure about it. Across all the eight MPAs assessed,a significant number of respondents (35% on the average) did not know if the MPA management could be sustained or not.

Perceptions on Sustaining MPA Management

Sustain MPA Management May not sustain MPA Management Do not know

81% 70% 63% 64% 60% 53% 54% 46% 32% 31% 37% 35% 25% 19% 14% 10%12% 9% 6% 5% 5% 1% 3% 4% 8% 6%

ALLPLS ENMRPA TNRP TIWS SBPS PBLPS MOBMR PIPLS Average

Figure 11: Perceptions on the sustainability of MPA management

Almost allof the respondents in ALLPLS, ENMRPA, and TNRP expressed their support to the management of MPAs by complying with the rules and regulations, discouraging illegal fishers, and promoting the site for visitors/tourists. Most of the respondents in the other MPAs said they will support the MPA management except in SBPS where 48% of the respondents said they will not support the MPA management..

Respondents' Willingness to Support MPA Management

Will support management of MPA Will not support management of MPA No answer

92% 92% 93% 76%

56% 53% 56% 48% 43% 42% 45% 41% 38% 37%

22% 19% 11% 14% 8% 8% 7% 10% 1% 5%

ALLPLS ENMRPA TNRP TIWS SBPS PBLPS MOBMR PIPLS Average

Figure 12: Respondent's willingness to support MPA management

Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) Results

The results of METT include two aspects: the level of threats that challenge the management of the MPA and the management effectiveness score itself,the computation of whichis based on the memorandum circular provided by PAWBand on a simple grand total formula.

Seven(7) MPAs were assessed using the METT during this benchmarking activity:ALLPLS, ARNP, ENMRPA, MOBMR, PBPLS, PIPLS,and SBPS. ENMRPA and PIPILS achieved the highest average percentage score of 50% while SBPS has the lowest percentage score of 27%. The average percentage score among the seven (7) MPAs is 42%. Most of the MPAs are faced with the challenge of managing residential and commercial development within the PA while the least of their concern is the threat on invasive and other problematic species and genes with an average percentage score of 17%.

Table 7: METT assessment results

Name of Percentage METT Highest Threat Faced by the MPA MPA Score Result ALLPLS Residential and commercial development w/in PA 86% 33% ARNP Climate change and severe weather 24% 47% ENMRPA Biological resource use and harm within a PA 75% 50% MOBMR Climate change and severe weather 50% 37% PBPLS Specific cultural and social threats 59% 48% PIPLS Biological resource use and harm within a PA 52% 50% SBPS Residential and commercial development w/in PA 79% 27% Average Residential and commercial development w/in PA 50% 42%

Alburquerque-Loay-Loboc Protected Landscape and Seascape

Most of the PAMB members of ALLPLS expressed greater concern over the following threats that need to be managed in the MPA:(1) residential and commercial developments with an average percentage score of 86%, (2) climate change and severe weather conditions (52%), and (3) biological resource use and harm (42%).

Residential and commercial development w/in PA 86% Climate change and severe weather 52% Biological resource use and harm within a PA 42% Geological events 33% Specific cultural and social threats 29% Agriculture and aquaculture within PA 26% Human intrusions an disturbance within a PA 20% Pollution entering or generated within PA 18% Transportation and service corridors within a PA 18% Energy production & mining within/outside a PA 18% Natural system modifications 11% Invasive and other problematic species and genes 4%

Figure 13: Threats that need to be managed in ALLPLS

ALLPLS was able to complywith 33%of the parameters set in theMETT. Looking at the International Union for Conservation of Nature-World Commission on Protected Areas (IUCN-WCPA) Framework on evaluating the management effectiveness of protected areas, ALLPLS had a higher achievement in terms of context with an average percentage score of 62%. This refers to the presence of gazettedlegal instruments.

However,it scored lowest in terms of processes with an average percentage score of 29%. This refer to the processes of management and operations of the PA, including but not limited to demarcation, access control, management-oriented research, resource management, budget and maintenance, monitoring and evaluation, and involvement of various stakeholders. Ironically, however, despite the fact that inputs such as funding, staff size or manpower capabilities, equipment, and infrastructure were very low, the parameters of outputs/outcomeshas relatively high average percentage score of 40%. The PAMB members perceived that the ALLPLS is providing economic benefit to the local communities and its biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are predominantly intact.

100% 80% 62% 60% 38% 40% 40% 30% 29% 20% 0% Context Planning Inputs Processes Outputs/outcomes

Figure 14: Achievement of METT Parameters (ALLPLS)

Apo Reef Natural Park

Among the seven (7) MPAs assessed, ARNP has the lowest average percentage score on the perception of the PAMB members on the threats that are faced by the MPA. Based on the perceptions of the PAMB members of ARNP, the most pressing threats that need to be addressed in their area are: (1) climate change and severe weather conditions with an average percentage score of 24%, (2) human intrusions and disturbance (15%), and (3) biological resource use and harm (14%).

Climate change and severe weather 24% Human intrusions and disturbance within a PA 15% Biological resource use and harm within a PA 14% Residential and commercial development w/in PA 10% Specific cultural and social threats 9% Geological events 8% Invasive and other problematic species and genes 8% Transportation and service corridors within a PA 8% Natural system modifications 5% Pollution entering or generated within PA 3% Energy production & mining within/outside a PA 1% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Figure 15: Threats that need to be managed in ARNP

On the effectiveness of management of the ARNP, its overall achievement rating is47%. The graph below shows that ARNP has not been halfway in achieving the parameters of METT with only 49% as the highest rating which is on planning and 48% on processes.The members of its PAMB perceived that there is a need to fully implement its GMP and further enhance its planning capability to come up with an effective design and objective of the MPA.The lowest rating is on provision of inputs such as efficient and well-trained staff, law enforcement team, and needed information for management such as resource inventory, annual budgetary allocations and other logistics needed for effective management of the MPA. This parameter has an average percentage score of 44% as the rate of achievement.

50% 49% 48% 48% 47%

46% 45% 44% 44%

42% Context Planning Inputs Processes Outputs/outcomes

Figure 16: Achievement of METT Parameters (ARNP)

El Nido Managed Resource Protected Area

The threats that need to be managed in ENMRPA include: (1) biological resource use and harm within the protected area with an average percentage score of 75%,(2) residential and commercial development (73%), and (3) climate change and severe weather (54%). The PAMB members expressed that ENMRPA is still faced with illegal fishing and illegal gathering of terrestrial plants and animals.

Biological resource use and harm within a PA 75% Residential and commercial development w/in PA 73% Climate change and severe weather 54% Pollution entering or generated within PA 51% Energy production & mining within/outside a PA 50% Specific cultural and social threats 48% Transportation and service corridors within a PA 48% Human intrusions an disturbance within a PA 39% Geological events 38% Natural system modifications 33% Agriculture and aquaculture within PA 33% Invasive and other problematic species and genes 26%

Figure 17: Threats that need to be managed in ENMRPA

ENMRPA achieved 50% of the parameters of METT.The members of PAMB perceived high achievement rate on context because it is legitimize by a presidential proclamation although it has not completed the nine-step requirement of a protected area whose last step is a congressional enactment through a republic act. Scores in planning is lowest among the five parameters. The members perceived that need to improve on the design, objectives, policies and regulations of the MPA. The GMP and the annual workplan should be fully implemented.

100% 78% 80%

60% 48% 50% 50% 50% 40% 20% 0% Context Planning Inputs Processes Outputs/outcomes

Figure 18: Achievement of METT Parameters (ENMRPA)

Masinloc and Oyon Bays Marine Reserve

The threats perceived in MOBMR include (1) climate change and severe weather with an average percentage score of 50%, (2)residential and commercial development (33%), and (3) pollution entering or being generated within the PA (29%). The members of the PAMB perceived that the MPA is highly vulnerable to coral bleaching which was experience during the 2010 bleaching event in the West Philippine Sea.

Climate change and severe weather 50% Residential and commercial development w/in PA 33% Pollution entering or generated within PA 29% Geological events 25% Biological resource use and harm within a PA 25% Natural system modifications 22% Agriculture and aquaculture within PA 22% Invasive and other problematic species and genes 17% Energy production & mining within/outside a PA 17% Specific cultural and social threats 13% Human intrusions an disturbance within a PA 13% Transportation and service corridors within a PA 8%

Figure 19: Threats that need to be managed in MOBMR

MOBMR achieved an average percentage score of 37%. It has achieved 100% in terms of context considering it has already a presidential proclamation. The PAMB members perceived that it is already sufficient legal basis for the MPA to be enforced. It has a low average percentage score on inputs because of lack of logistical support to implement and enforce the MPA. The PASu is also working in concurrent capacity and he has only one staff supporting him in the implementation of the regulations and programs of the MPA.

100% 100%

80%

60%

40% 36% 40% 32% 33%

20%

0% Context Planning Inputs Processes Outputs/outcomes

Figure 20: Achievement of METT Parameters (MOBMR)

Pujada Bay Protected Landscape and Seascape

The members of the PBPLS PAMB perceived that the most pressing threatsfaced by their MPA are:(1) specific cultural and social threats with an average percentage score of 59%, (2) energy production and mining (53%), and (3) invasive and other problematic species and genes (44%). The members of the PAMB felt that the possible loss of support to communities and projects due to changes in political leadership, loss of cultural links, traditional knowledge and/or management practicesand effect of influence groups on indigenous people’s values and freedom to decide might jeopardize the efforts to manage the MPA effectively.

Specific cultural and social threats 59% Energy production & mining within/outside a PA 53% Invasive and other problematic species and genes 44% Pollution entering or generated within PA 42% Biological resource use and harm within a PA 37% Residential and commercial development w/in PA 36% Natural system modifications 24% Human intrusions an disturbance within a PA 22% Transportation and service corridors within a PA 21% Agriculture and aquaculture within PA 21% Geological events 15% Climate change and severe weather 3%

Figure 21: Threats that need to be managed in PBPLS

The PBPLS achieved an average percentage score of 48%. The highest average percentage score is on context which the PAMB members perceived to have a sufficient legal basis for their MPA which was declared under presidential proclamation. Inputs such as annual budget allocations, MPA staff and law enforcement manpower are not adequate, hence it has the lowest average percentage score of 40%.

60% 53% 49% 50% 40%

Context Planning Inputs Processes Outputs/outcomes

Figure 22: Achievement of METT Parameters (PBPLS)

Palaui Island Protected Landscape and Seascape

The threats that need to be managed in PIPLS include: (1)biological resource use and harm within the protected area which has an average percentage score of 52%,(2) climate change and severe weather conditions (36%), and (3) specific cultural and social threats (35%).Illegal fishing and harvesting of terrestrial products needs to be managed in PIPLS.

Biological resource use and harm within a PA 52% Climate change and severe weather 36% Specific cultural and social threats 35% Residential and commercial development w/in PA 33% Energy production & mining within/outside a PA 30% Human intrusions an disturbance within a PA 27% Agriculture and aquaculture within PA 26% Pollution entering or generated within PA 16% Natural system modifications 13% Geological events 10% Invasive and other problematic species and genes 6% Transportation and service corridors within a PA 6%

Figure 23: Threats that need to be managed in PIPLS

The PIPLS is halfway to achieving management effectiveness having an average percentage score of is 50%. The PAMB members scored highest in terms of context and gave 100% achievement rate. They felt that the presidential proclamation is sufficient legal basis for the implementation of the MPA but they are not aware that there is a process for fully legitimizing the MPA through a congressional act. They also gave the lowest score on inputs with a rate of 28%.

100% 100%

80% 64% 64%

60% 49%

40% 28%

20%

0% Context Planning Inputs Processes Outputs/outcomes

Figure 24: Achievement of METT Parameters (PIPLS)

SaranganiBay Protected Seascape

The three highest threats that need to be managed in SBPS are the following: (1) residential and commercial development with an average percentage score of 79%, (2) pollution entering the PA or generated within it (66%), and (3) climate change and severe weather conditions (47%). Since the MPA is bordered by industrial and economic development zones in General Santos City and nearby municipalities, the PAMB members perceived a need to address the threat on coastal development.

Residential and commercial development w/in PA 79% Pollution entering or generated within PA 66% Climate change and severe weather 47% Geological events 43% Biological resource use and harm within a PA 41% Specific cultural and social threats 34% Human intrusions an disturbance within a PA 33% Agriculture and aquaculture within PA 33% Energy production & mining within/outside a PA 28% Natural system modifications 25% Transportation and service corridors within a PA 25% Invasive and other problematic species and genes 15%

Figure 25: Threats that need to be managed in SBPS

The result of the assessment shows that the SBPS has a low average percentage score of 27%. The figure below shows that the management of SBPS has strengths in context, planning, and processes.

100%

80%

60% 45% 34% 40% 29% 24% 19% 20%

0% Context Planning Inputs Processes Outputs/outcomes

Figure 26: Achievement of METT Parameters (SBPS)

Conclusions

The benchmark for the MPAs under NIPAS shows that 33% of all the MPAs assessed are effectively managed and 44% of their total area (in hectares) is effectively managed.

The strengths of the MPAs benchmarked include (1) the presence of one or more pertinent legal instruments,(2) engaging community participation in the establishment process, and (3) the presence of a management body.On the other hand, their weaknesses lie in (1) monitoring and evaluation, (2) sustainable financing, and (3) information, education, and communication programs.

Most of the community residents (51% of all the respondents) were aware of the presence of the MPAs in their respective areas. Alarmingly, however, most of the residents in the MPAs in Mindanao were not. Factors that may have contributed to the people's awarenessinclude the following: (1) the presence of PA office and the implementation of projects related to the protected area, as in the case of ENMRPA where the MPA office has been very visible and for which the Non-government Organizations (NGOs) for Integrated Protected Areas (NIPA)had undertaken community-based activities that were remembered by the residents;(2) the use of popular media for information dissemination, as in the case of TRNP where most of the residents were informed about the MPA through the electronic media such as television, radio, and the internet; and(3) the functional enforcement of a locally-managed MPA, as in the case of ALLPLS where the residents were familiar with Sta. Felomina Fish Sanctuary located in Alburquerque, Bohol and would equate this to the ALLPLS.

The most common among the threats perceived by the PAMB membersin the seven (7) MPAs assessed are (1) residential and commercial development within PA,(2) climate change and severe weather, and (3) biological resource use and harm within PA.

Using the METT, the average management effectiveness score of all the MPAs assessed was low at 42%. Three MPAs are below the average percentage score namely ALLPLS, MOBMR and SBPS. SBPS has the lowest average percentage score of 27% while the ENMRPA and PIPLS have the highest average percentage score of 50%.

Recommendations

Since this assessment aims at improving MPA management effectiveness, the following policy and program recommendations are provided by this study:

The Management Body

Based on the MEAT, the management body which is the PAMB has been identified and determined and the roles of the members have been clarified as indicated by the presence of organizational charts and various committees. Nonetheless, there remains a need to conduct a regular evaluation of the PAMB's performance in order to identify areas for improvement and to determine immediate courses of action. For one, the coordinating function of the PAMB needs to be strengthenedin order to maximize the possibilities of gatheringoutside support, whether from government or non-government offices and institutions, for additional financial, manpower, and other assistance.

The Management Plan

The General Management Planning Strategy (GMPS) of the MPAs benchmarkedshould be reviewed and updated in order to incorporate necessary adjustments and so address current issues and concerns. While six (6) MPAs already hadworking plans at the time, three of them had not yet been reviewed and updated. The other MPA had drafted its management plan but was not yet adopted by its PAMB.

Ultimately, for these management plans to become relevant to the conservation programs of the municipal and provincial governments, it is imperative that these plans become incorporated into the pertinent municipal and/or provincial development plans. Only three of the MPAs assessed hadentered this threshold, corresponding to Level 4 of the MEAT.

Based on METT parameters on planning, the three MPAs scored an average of only 47%, which means that their PAMBs still have to exert more effort in planning and addressing the following concerns: (1) regulations are still weak in controlling the use of the protected area and the activities within it; (2) the MPAs are only partially managed considering the objectives originally agreed on are not achieved; (3) the designs of the MPAs are not compelling people enough to pursue their set objectives; and (4) a management plan may have been prepared or is presently being prepared but is definitely not being implemented.

Enforcing the MPA

Considering the current staff backing of the MPAs, the enforcement of regulations is primarily dependent on the available support from the LGUs, as theLGUs are the ones providing necessary logistics—including the manpower for regular patrolling—organizing, training, and providing honoraria for the BantayDagat and purchasing patrol boats.This is the case of General Santos City and other municipalities surrounding the SBPLS. Unfortunately, their setup is not shared by other MPAs that are still highly dependent on the resources of DENR alone. Though such a responsibility on the part of the DENR is stipulated in the NIPAS Act, these MPAs that rely so much on it have not really achieved the enforcement thresholds expressed in the MEAT.

It is, therefore, recommended that the PAMB, the DENR through its regional executive director (RED), and the PASu closely coordinate and forge a memorandum of agreement with the LGUs for the enforcement activities of every MPA.

Financing the MPA

With an average annual MPA recurrent cost in the Philippines of P40,000 per hectare, large MPAs such as those that had been assessed may not be able to finance their operations. Even the TRNP which has a trust fund, an ample allocation from the General Appropriations Act of the Philippines, subsidy from the provincial government of Palawan, and additional funding from external sources could not sustainably finance its annual operations.

Ideally, conservation investments should be shouldered by the government and not by the conservation area itself. It will always be a difficult dilemma trying to keep a conservation area from threats of human activity while marketing it for ecotourism, which is essentially a form of human intrusion. It is therefore recommended that the government of the Philippines allocate sufficient funds for the nationally-managed MPAs, just aslocally-managed MPAs are being funded by the LGUs.

Increasing awareness on the MPA

The perception survey shows a very low awareness among the stakeholders in the MPAs. It is recommended that thePASu, together with other DENR staff,launch and sustain a systematic and focused awareness campaign, not only through IEC materials but more importantly through community- based activities. These will open opportunities for the PASu and the DENR to know and understandthe community's perceptions and,in due course, respond to or address conservation issues at the grassroots level.

The following “next steps” are recommended:

 Build up the various capabilities of PAMB members, PA workers, and other conservation partners through an institutionalized training program that includes (1)basic orientation on the NIPAS and its various aspects;(2) policy development and implementation, participatory governance, and conflict management/resolution; (3) project development and fundraising protocols; (4) management planning, budgeting, implementation, and evaluation; and (5) law enforcement. Training teams must be put together to deliver the training package.The DENR should also work closely with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) to make their in-house trainings for prosecutors and judges continuously relevant to the needs of the MPA management. A team of mentors should also be convened to mentor and coach PAMB members and MPA workers. The staffing pattern of the PAWB and the Protected Area, Wildlife and Coastal Zone Management (PAWCZM) division should be looked into to ensure in-house capacity for mentoring and coaching. A PAMB manual of operations couldmake management actions at the site-level more convenient to perform and monitor. Continuous updating should also be ensured through popular materials, especially those thatexplain new information and/or translate relevant laws and administrative acts into the local languages.

 Increase the number of PA workers through partnerships with other national government agencies(NGAs) through a presidential directive coupled with conservation contracts. It is deemed that partnership with LGUs can flourish through the sharing of powers, following the decentralization track.

 Complete the PA establishment process of NIPAS for all MPAs. The DENR Secretary should issue a memorandum order to prioritize the completion of the establishment process, particularly giving a deadline for the Protected Area Suitability Assessment (PASA). The PAWB should set a plan of action for the establishment process of each MPA, in consultation with its locality, and seeking the involvement of other agencies, such as Department of Agriculture's Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (DA-BFAR), academic and research institutions, NGOs, and LGUs. Guidelines and standards in the conduct of public consultations should be established.

 A strategy for involving LGUs and NGAs in MPA management should be formulated and put into motion and conservation contracts should be good instruments in cementing these relationships. A study on how to link MPA management with the concerns of other NGAs should be made. Among the agencies that should be targeted are DA-BFAR, Department of Budget and Management (DBM), epartment of Tourism (DOT), Philippine National Police (PNP), Department of National Defense (DND), DOJ, Department of Finance (DOF), 37

Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), and Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). Similarly, a study on how to share management powers, responsibilities, and benefits with LGUs should be conducted. At the system-wide level, a NIPAS Advisory Council, or better yet, a NIPAS Management Board should be able to bring all these NGAs together. The Council or Board should be able to discuss, agree on, and commit to solutions to system-wide and MPA- specific problems and issues. This should also help generate commitment to sound PA management at the highest level of government. A PP or an RA will be a good instrument for establishing and convening this body.

 Fundraising and financing problems and issues should be addressed. This will involve exploring the possibility of redesigning the IPAF and looking into the financing schemes at the site level. A study on how the IPAF can be more supportive of the sites is in order, to include putting up an endowment fund and the retention of the 75% share of the sites. A crucial issue is whether or not the IPAF provision in the NIPAS Act needs to be amended. The role of the business sector should be explored. The DENR should advocate for allocations for individual MPAs for inclusion in the General Appropriations Act. The DENR should also raise funds from its development partners to finance the activities herein identified. The practices of some LGUs (with the cooperation of the PAMBs, in some instances) to capture the revenues generated from the use and enjoyment of NIPAS sites should be looked into to see how these can both support the needs of the sites and espouse a better relationship with LGUs and local communities within the boundaries of the law. LGUs should be encouraged to share in the costs of MPA management. PAWB should also help the sites identify sources of funds. A directory of relevant funding institutions and NGOs and people's organizations (POs) working in MPAs should be prepared and distributed by PAWB to the sites. It is also suggested that PAWB have a division whose mandate is to help sites access funding sources.

 Strengthen the monitoring, evaluation and learning system of MPAs. An in-depth analysis of the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) tools applied to MPAs and the NIPAS should be made and, thereafter, a definitive M&E tool should be adopted. Performance monitoring should be done on a regular basis. PAWB should develop and maintain a database and knowledge management system to link the tools to supporting decisions. PAWB should be able to show how M&E is used for improving policies and practices at both the national and the local levels. A system of documenting and popularizing the best practices should be in place and a corresponding incentive system, too—one that will reward the best performing MPAs.

Acronyms used in this report

ALLPLS - Alburquerque-Loay-Loboc Protected Landscape and Seascape ARMM - Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao ARNP - Apo Reef Natural Park BD - BantayDagat CCEF - Coastal Conservation Education Foundation CEZA - Cagayan Economic Zone Authority CI - Conservation International CIP - Conservation International Philippines CTI - Coral Triangle Initiative CTSP - Coral Triangle Support Partnership DA-BFAR - Department of Agriculture Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources DBM - Department of Budget and Management DND - Department of National Defense DOF - Department of Finance DOJ - Department of Justice DOT - Department of Tourism DENR - Department of Environment and Natural Resources DILG - Department of Interior and Local Government DTI - Department of Trade and Industry ECOGOV 2 - Environmental Governance Project Phase 2 ENCLEC - El Nido Coastal Law Enforcement Committee ENMRPA - El Nido Managed Resource Protected Area ETDF - Eco-tourism Development Fund GEF - Global Environment Facility GMP - General Management Plan IEC - information, education, and communication IPAF - Integrated Protected Area Fund IPAP - Integrated Protected Area Plan IUCN - International Union for Conservation of Nature LGU - local government unit MEAT - Management Effectiveness Assessment Tool METT - Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool MO - municipal ordinance MOA - memorandum of agreement MOBMR - Masinloc and Oyon Bay Marine Reserve MPA - marine protected area MSN - MPA Support Network NIPAS - National Integrated Protected Area System NGA - national government agency NGO - non-government organization NPOA - National Plan of Action PA - protected area 39

PAMB - protected area management board PASA - protected area suitability assessment PASu - protected area superintendent PAWB - Protected Area and Wildlife Bureau PAWCZM - Protected Area, Wildlife and Coastal Zone Management PBPLS - Pujada Bay Protected Landscape and Seascape PHILJA - Philippine Judicial Academy PIPLS - Palaui Island Protected Landscape and Seascape PNP - Philippine National Police PO - people's organization PP - presidential proclamation RA - republic act RED - regional executive director SAPA - Special Use Agreement in Protected Areas SBPS - Sarangani Bay Protected Seascape TIHPA - Turtle Islands Heritage Protected Area TIWS - Turtle Islands Wildlife Sanctuary TRNP - Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park UNESCO - United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization USAID - United States Agency for International Development WCPA - World Commission on Protected Areas WWF - World Wildlife Fund

References

Arceo, H.O., M.F. Portigo, C. Nanola, V. Lumbab, P.M. Alino and A.J. Menez. MPA management effectiveness and MPA Monitoring &Evaluation : Deriving incentives for improving MPA governance. [Unpublished USAID report].

Bacudo, I., Aglionby J., Rambaldi, G., Matsuura P., Blastique, T. 2001. “Handbook for the Establishment and Management of Integrated Protected Area Sub-funds.Essentials of Protected Area Management in the Philippines”, Volume 10.NIPAP, PAWB-DENR, Philippines.

CI-CTSP, 2011.The NIPAS Act and the MPAs: Challenges and Prospects. [Unpublished report].

CTI Interim Regional Secretariat. 2009. Regional Plan of Action: Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries and Food Security (CTI-CFF), Jakarta, Indonesia

DENR-Protected Area and Wildlife Bureau. 2009. Internet download: http://denr.gov.ph

DENR Administrative Order 2000-51. 2000. “Guidelines and Principles for Determining Fees for Access to and Sustainable Use of Resources in Protected Areas”. DENR, Philippines.

DENR Administrative Order No. 26-2008. “Revised Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 7586 (The National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS)”. DENR, Philippines.

DENR Memorandum Circular No. 2004-06. “Amending DMC 35, series of 1993 re: Criteria and

DENR Administrative Order No. 2005-21 “Revised Guidelines on the Establishment and Management of Integrated Protected Areas Fund (IPAF)”. DENR, Philippines.

Eisma-Osorio, Rose Lisa. 2008. Opinion: TanonStrait Protected Seascape Resource Use Fee System. Coastal Conservation and Education Foundation, CebuCity

Guidelines for the Categorization of Protected Areas under the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS)”. DENR, Philippines.

Gubbay, S. 2005. Evaluating the management effectiveness of marine protected areas: Using sites in the UK and the UK MPA Programme to illustrate different approaches.A report for WWF – UK. June 2005.

Hind EJ, et.al. From community-based to centralised national management – A wrong turning for the governance of the marine protected areas in Apo Island, Philippines? Marine Policy (2009)

Hockings, M., S. Stolton and N. Dudley. 2000. ‘Evaluating effectiveness: A framework for assessing the management of protected areas’. [IUCN, Cardiff University: Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K.]

IUCN – The World Conservation Union. 2000. Financing Protected Areas. Guidelines For Protected Area Managers. Financing Protected Areas Task Force of the World Commission on Protected Areas

(WCPA) of IUCN, in collaboration with the Economics Unit of the IUCN. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines No.5. Adrian Philips (Series ed)

James, Alexander. 1999. Institutional constraints to protected area funding. PARKS: 9 (2): 15-26. World Commission on Protected Areas of IUCN – The World Conservation Union

Leverington, F., M. Hockings, J. Courrau, H. Pavese and K.L. Costa. 2007. ‘Management effectiveness evaluation in Latin America and the Caribbean – Part B: Summary of methodologies’. Report to OAS InterAmerican Biodiversity Information Network.

Luna, C.Z., W.L. Campos, H.O. Arceo, D.G.G. Bacaltos, P.D. Beldia II, A.B. de Guzman, V.V. Hilomen, A.S. Ilano, L.A.B. Menez, C.L. Nanola, H.A. Roa-Quiaoit, C.P. Sajot, R.F. Subade, Y.Primavera-Tirol, W.H. Uy. Rating MPA to Improve their Governance: Insights from a National Search to Identify the Best- Managed MPA. 5-15. In: 2007 Outstanding MPA Awards & Recognition, Promoting Best Practices. Philippine Association of Marine Science.

Marine Environment and Resources Foundation, Inc., Conservation International – Philippines and the Borneo Marine Research Institute, University of Malaysia – Sabah. 2009. Unpublished Report Submitted to the ASEAN Center for Biodiversity. 149p.

Republic Act No. 7586. 1992. “National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992”. Philippines.

Republic of the Philippines.National Plan of Action for the Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries and Food Security. DENR-PAWB, Quezon City, Philippines

Rosales, R.M.P. 2003.Developing Pro-Poor Markets for Environmental Services in the Philippines.International Institute for Environment and Development and Resources, Environment and Economics Center for Studies, Inc.

Weeks, R., Russ, G. R., Alcala, A. C. and White, A. T. (2010), Effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas in the Philippines for Biodiversity Conservation. Conservation Biology, 24: 531–540. doi: 10.1111/j.1523- 1739.2009.01340.x